Almost only devote religious people like Obama are allowed to climb to power in the West. Germany’s chancellor Merkel had to play down that she was a physicist in order to ensure the voters trust her to be aligned with the obsessions of her “Christian Democratic Union”.

In China, scientists decide at the highest level for many years. Science bloggers dream about secular people in the most important political positions, of science having effective influence "up there". While they yearn, secular scientists occupy the most important political positions in the most important country in the world.

Liu Yandong: 1964-1970 Student of the Department of Engineering Chemistry of Qinghua University, 1970-1972 technician and workshop head of Kaiping Chemical Plant, 1972-1978 Beijing Chemical Experiment Plant, … . Today, she is one of the world’s most politically influential and powerful females. Scientist – secular – unknown to Western intellectuals of the pretend sciency or feminist variety – go figure.

In China, at least until 2012, science was not a campaign promise forgotten one minute after the vote:

"It's amazing," says Alice Lyman Miller, a China scholar at Stanford University and editor of China Leadership Monitor, "the thought of the entire Politburo sitting around and listening to academics for hours." [time magazine]

The science community pretends to encourage more science inside politics. They demand future directed, secular, peaceful leadership. Hu Jintao is clearly secular, a scientist, a humble person who went through hardship – carrying bricks belongs to his resume. Via the Scientific Development Concept toward a harmonious society, Hu and people like him made science the leading ideology (!) of a quarter of the human population. Hu established "Follow Science, discard Ignorance!" as the third of his Eight Honors and Disgraces. China's former main doctrine has been effectively replaced by secular science as the official leading ideology! [It seems to have been abandoned now however?!?]

Hu Jintao has a scientific background and worked as an engineer building hydroelectric power stations. He also studied Buddhism in order to facilitate the dialogue with religious.

These are successes for science and secularism, yet science media or "new atheists" never mention it. Why? Of course much of the science in China is pretend, like all political doctrines everywhere (and like much of science anyway). Or is it that China shows us another example for how undemocratic scientists are? Because of China, Asia takes over the role of scientific leader, but that does not mean paradise is afoot.

Intellectuals' selective perception and loyalty lies with the institutionalized corruption in the power structures that ensure their own positions. Academia is corrupt. Intellectuals want to believe the ridiculous media distortions about rival political systems. In the West, collaboration with and belief in an ill-defined pseudo-democratic doctrine rationalizes their own lifestyle. Something similar goes on in China of course. Wherever science doesn’t support indoctrination, scientists disregard it.

Hu Jintao is just a single example for a guy from one of the poorest provinces in China being able through dedication to the cause and hard work to influence political decisions. He knows science, and his consensus seeking style has made science important in China. The Chinese political system has made it possible that such could make it all the way to the most important position. The Western systems have to still prove that they can offer similar. [Now, consensus seeking went down the drain, nationalism and person cult returned, labor camps have been renamed "drug rehabilitation centers".]

Some of you see the end coming, global warming and overpopulation killing us. You want science to have more influence on politics soon. China is the only country where science, lowering population growth and city sprawling, and many other crucial topics had been taken seriously. Some of you fear religion to be the biggest future threat of all. China is basically the only country where secularism is still taken seriously.

[In the fall of 2012, the "first among equals" kind of group leadership in the 22 member Politburo and its Standing Committee has apparently been abandoned. As of 2016, Xi Jinping has been pronounced "the core" of China. Is it deemed necessary show for the masses while party internally science has still something to say? Who knows ...]

Comments

I am somewhat baffled over WHY the writer seems to think Democrats twist or lie about science. My experience has been that they try and expose the how and why as to climate, evolution, stem cells, etc.

Just one example: Obama disregards the science about marijuana and now supports prohibition and the drug war, mass incarceration, and thus all the many problems that have been shown to come with it. Not only a clear deception of voters and braking of promises, but a clear not giving a shit about the science.Sure - they are careful where they need to keep voters, so they cannot turn on climate or evolution, but where ever it is about voters they think do not matter, science doesn't matter either.

Agreed, it is obvious to anyone who isn't rationalizing why they vote the way they do. The left has easily as many anti-science positions as the right - and the politicians on the left also - but people are always surprised to see examples or say those are trivial or not 'representative' of the voters on that side (anti-agriculture, anti-vaccine, anti-research); though a ridiculous claim the entire right is against stem cell research and for pollution is a perfectly acceptable statement - by people on the left.

Sascha-----One would Hardly count One issue, especially one like a medicinal research one as proof that "Democrats lie about and twist science"! Who knows what this can of worms will open. You cannot generalize Democrats and Science with this one highly controversial issue ! Sorry, but you are off base here, trying to frame Democrats this way.

Same with Hank Campbell-----While the Entire right may not be against stem cell research or is pro pollution ----WHO holds the control for those? Who, despite 75% of Americans saying they want the rich taxes---will not budge on that issue. Republican leaders who control the laws. MOST people who vote Republican will buy their claims that we cannot tax the rich, we cannot make the rich clean up their air, that it is against God to tamper with stem cells, etc. To do otherwise leaves them wondering why they are voting for the Right.

You cannot generalize Democrats and Science with this one highly controversial issue !

It isn't just one issue. Hank and Sascha are right. As a Democrat myself (such as it is), I have to concede that they have behaved in a cowardly political manner, and they will twist and lie about science just as readily to suit their own agendas. In addition, it is equally true that it will be mostly Progressive positions to question GMO foods, hold anti-vaccine attitudes, and ignore medical evidence if it interferes with their political agendas (i.e. vegans, anti-smoking, marijuana, etc).

That is the funny thing about partisan filtering. No Republicans are against 'stem cell' research - it has been done for 40 years with no complaints - but pundits (in science and outside) manipulated public opinion by saying new hESC research and and stem cells were interchangeable so if you were concerned about one new technology 10 years ago, you apparently wanted people to get cancer. It's classic spin but he/she fell for it, yet doesn't think Democrats do that. Then they go off on taxing people because the 1970s, when tax rates were 70%, were apparently awesome. So awesome Jimmy Carter got bounced out after one term.

It's fine to do so but it has nothing to do with which side is anti-science - yet that is the argument invariably invoked when it is demonstrated that the left has as many kooky anti-science positions as the right.

As I understand the term secularists believe that religious belief should not be part of the political structure - this does not determine any particular religious belief, for example atheism.

Science will not answer philosophical questions - for example why are we here? Is there a meaning to life? These questions can bring an individual to some sort of religious stance which does not imply that science will or will not be rejected. Some particular beliefs of particular religions do contradict science but there is no necessary contradiction in a religious attitude in general. Whether there is meaning in human suffering, for example, does not effect whether we should increase our understanding of the world through observation and experiment.

Overpopulation: There are a number of arguments that this planet can only support a finite number of human beings. The logical jump from "finite number" to "some number we are very close to" requires un-scientific assumptions. The same argument has been made for 200 years, sooner or later you need to make the observation that parts of the argument are missing. Using this argument to support China's one-child policy is weak. It's also naive - China didn't adopt the one-child policy to avoid world overpopulation, it adopted it in order to allow China to feed its own population, which would allow the growth of a stronger China. It is no longer in the interest of a stronger China and will now be overturned.

Lastly, the arguments that Western "business" and "politics" are invested in "religion" are extremely naive. A more realistic description of the difference is that Wester civilization is invested in the idea of individualism where China is not.

There are a number of arguments that this planet can only support a finite number of human beings. The logical jump from "finite number" to "some number we are very close to" requires un-scientific assumptions.

Sorry, but your entire statement is flawed. Human population has long surpassed the planet's "carrying capacity". Human population size is solely supported by human technology and is absolutely dependent on its political/social systems for implementation.

So, if you want to argue that there are enough resources to allow continued technological exploitation which enables human population growth, then you're correct that a specific number isn't known. On the other hand, it is completely scientific to recognize that this planet's biodiversity is subject to more questions than merely "how many humans per square foot can we place here".

ANY population that experiences unconstrained growth introduces stresses into its population and will compromise the environment in which it exists. To pretend that humans are somehow different is "unscientific".

...it adopted it in order to allow China to feed its own population, which would allow the growth of a stronger China.

Once again, what does this have to do with anything? I've already indicated that human population growth is dependent on human political/social systems for implementation, so it shouldn't be surprising that those same systems are engaged in establishing the "rules" under which they expect to achieve their goals.

This is precisely what such unbridled growth gives rise to. Humans want to believe they have a "right" to have children, but this is absurd on the face of it. "Rights" are politically determined and have no place in any discussion regarding biology. Therefore if one wants to consider that status of the "right" to have children, then one must be prepared to acknowledge that such a "right" can also be removed or curtailed.